Just War Theory: makes more sense to me than Geneva rules

[scipan]

Thread Reader

David Decosimo
@DavidDecosimo
37m • 16 tweets • 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
If your only ethics are Foucault & Fanon, you’re wholly unequipped to make the distinctions necessary to recognize justice & uphold dignity in relation to political violence.
Just war theory, an ancient tradition of ethical inquiry, offers a better way. It is relevant just now.🧵
In its classic formulation, the theory claims that certain acts of killing are neither ‘necessary evils’ nor merely permissible but, under certain constraints, just & right. The theory sets criteria for *when* war is just (jus ad bellum) & *how* it must be fought (jus in bello).

Jus ad bellum
1. Just Cause: serious & unlawful wrong to a polity, eg invasion, colonization, despotism.
2. Right Intention: an aim to right that very wrong, not revenge or annihilation. Here Hamas fails. Israel will fail if it aims for more or other than simply defeating Hamas.
3. Sovereign Authority: those waging war must have sovereign authority & due claim to represent a polity. A private group, faction, or smattering of aggrieved people cannot justly war. Still, a group of colonized or enslaved people can duly organize & constitute themselves.

If any of these jus ad bellum criteria go unmet, the war or rebellion as a whole is not just.

But regardless, the norms for just conduct within the war itself remain absolutely obligatory. These jus in bello criteria are especially relevant as Israel battles Hamas in Gaza.

Jus in bello
1. Discrimination: It is never licit to intentionally target non-combatants. Even a just rebellion by a colonized people must exclusively target combatants. Hamas fails here. Israel must only intentionally target combatants & military targets, never non-combatants.
2. Proportionality:
This concerns weighing the good secured by some attack on combatants against the likely *unintended* collateral harm it will cause to noncombatants. That side effect must be duly weighed. Proportionality *never* involves or excuses intentionally targeting NCs!
Say a combatant target abuts a school. The blast from even the weakest weapon will also kill many children. Proportionality means weighing such a tragic loss in itself & relative to the target & his death’s impact on the war. It may demand no strike or risking using ground troops
Note the NC death is not intended, even as it’s foreseen certainly. If the children miraculously survive, they don’t strike again but rejoice. In contrast, if the target survives, their purposes are thwarted; they strike again. Nor are the NC deaths a means to killing the target.
For example, taking noncombatant hostages or using threats or deliberate harm to NCs as a means of getting concessions from the enemy is forbidden & has nothing to do with considerations of proportionality.
In short, NC lives must be duly & truly valued: never intentionally targeted & weighed heavily in considering a strike on combatants that will collaterally harm them. Justice demands willingness to incur more casualties & risk oneself & a more costly/inefficient path to victory.
Armies who fail to distinguish themselves from civilians, use human shields, or occupy hospitals bear responsibility for harm to NCs that accrues from enemy strikes, but their evil conduct does *not* excuse the justly warring from discrimination or proportionality obligations.
3. No indiscriminate means: Some weapons/tactics are inherently indiscriminate (biological), disproportionate in effect, or both (nuclear). Debate on sieges concerns the indiscriminate nature of blocking access to basic goods like food/meds/water needed for noncombatant survival.
4. No inherently evil means: Intrinsically evil acts like torture & rape are always forbidden.
5. POWs must be given quarter & treated humanely.
6. No reprisals: Enemy violation of above norms doesn’t excuse doing so oneself. No attacks meant to punish rather than to win the war.

I’ve simplified & left much aside here. But I want to commend & offer this vocabulary. Whether you agree on every point, surely you can see it is an ethically serious effort to try to honor human dignity & seek justice amidst the horrors of war.
As war continues, all must uphold these norms. Hamas has horribly violated them & wars unjustly. Israel must not violate discrimination & proportionality norms lest it to mirror the terror it fights. It is always fair to ask whether a nation is fully honoring these obligations.
• • •

Link to tweet

What do people think? Of course, there is no body or tribunal to decide things; it's up to the combatants.

[MOMFUDSKI]

1. The story of Christmas Eve during World War Two

wherein the Americans and the Germans sat in the woods together and decided, for that night, not to kill each other. Brings tears to my eyes every time I think about that lovely story.

[scipan]

2. Oh yes.

Me too. But I mean that in the most emphatic way. Literally brings tears thinking about it.

Pretty sure it was WWI. The higher up officers didn't like it *at all* and I think finally moved the grunts away to stop it.

There's a book about it that I loved and a movie that was pretty good too.

[Voltaire2]

3. It was WWI, it was the British and the Germans

and it also might be more myth than reality.

Here is something that did happen in WWI:

"He (Gen Pershing) controversially ordered the First and Second Armies to continue fighting before the signed Armistice took effect. This resulted in 3,500 American casualties on the last day of the war, an act which was regarded as murder by a few officers under his command. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing#Summary_of_service

[EX500rider]

4. Proportionality? A somewhat silly idea in warfare IMO

So Israel is suppose to stop after they kill 1,200+- Hamas but do nothing to stop further strikes?


The Japanese government killed 2,403 at Pearl harbor.
That got them from 2,600,000 to 3,100,000 killed in return.

Should the US have stopped at 2,400?